Eh, I'm all for undoing corporations but at least in this case I don't think prison is really warranted. Had people been hurt or a more dangerous chemical been spilled then I'd reconsider. Fine the company the entire cost of the cleanup, penalize them further for failing to follow safety procedures, and watch them like a hawk for years. Oh and find out why they weren't being inspected before this. That part seems to be the biggest failing in all this.

Hopefully the chemical companies will successfully lobby for a new tax to appear on each resident's water bill so the enormously dire consequences of these job-killing regulations can be at least somewhat deflected.

I'm still holding the opinion here that this was less negligence than just a black swan event; but at this point it looks like, yes, there's plenty of negligent regulatory violations. Now the next question: Is everybody doing it? Because if so, yes, everybody's guilty and needs to straighten this shiat out pronto; but also it's fairly clear that these sorts of shortcuts and slipshod operations are reasonably safe--reasonable enough for someone to actually believe it's fine, even if it's not by-the-book.

I don't think it's a good strategy to only audit the business that dropped the ball. When one of them screws up, we need to look around and see if their mistakes are industry standard practice.

"Freedom" means polluting our air, land, and water; as well as spending our money away at companies that just hoard cash and don't hire anyone, ask for increased productivity from current employers, and leave wages stagnant or ask for wage and benefit concessions from Unions (or just takes them from current employees, blaming the "economy" or "marketplace"). I think we need to push for a new freedom, one that isn't defined by doublespeak and buzz words. A freedom that allows us to live comfortably, happy, and not threatened with the day to day fears of job termination, poverty, and failing health.

When your liver and kidneys hang like a centenarian's tackle, you can thank your stars you lived in God's Country, West Virginia. And praise God that you were free to drink poisoned water and then defend the people who poisoned you.

exPFCWintergreen:the money is in the banana stand: With a company dealing with chemicals, shouldn't there be routine inspections so this sort of thing could be either mitigated or stopped from occurring at all? How the fark did it get this far? Back when we had a full-time shop, we had OSHA inspections all the time to make sure that our emissions, fans, storage, and disposal/recycling was being done correctly. We aren't a very large company, and the "chemicals" that we were dealing with were mostly lacquers for refinishing, epoxies, spray booths, and paints. How the fark does a large company like that who deals specifically with hazardous chemicals NOT have routine inspections?

Had some of the same questions myself, the systemic amount of overlap in compliance failure related to several different state and federal regulatory agencies for an incident like this to happen is rather surprising. Part of it may be that the company itself is just a middleman, only being a waypoint between the chemical manufacturers and coal refiners. Ideally, a company like this shouldn't exist today, having been outmodded by digital-era logistics and the realization that storing huge amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals in any one place is a bad idea (as this and many other similar incidents have painfully demonstrated). Although if a particular chemical has only limited applications and is only manufactured in batches by one or two companies (which this may be), storage of some sort may be unavoidable (but there are many better alternatives than using one big tank). A company only dealing with the transfer of chemicals could likely operate normally without any employee having any specific chemical-related expertise or experience (and may be able to operate more easily in a regulatory gray-area). In such a case, basic steps like OSHA chemical safety training and EPA waste disposal and containment compliance which should come second nature to anyone who has worked with chemicals weren't there (a cul ...

I'd suggest that this is by design to limit the liability of the other entities. If those tanks belonged to one of the big player ... either the manufacturer or the coal company, they'd have to maintain it to limit the risk of a spill and thus their liability. That's expensive. Better to create a small company for the sole purpose of owning this facility with no other resources. If something happens, that little company is screwed, but there's nothing important there. "Freedom Industries" is corporate tongue-in-cheek for freedom from liability.

Donnchadha:See? This is why government regulation and oversight is a terrible thing. There were absolutely ZERO reported safety violations when nobody was going around looking for them -- and now that they are, it's through the farking roof!

See? This is why government regulation and oversight is a terrible thing. There were absolutely ZERO reported safety violations when nobody was going around looking for them -- and now that they are, it's through the farking roof!

According to WV Environmental Health inspectors, first, they have no authority to inspect chemical storage tanks, unless the chemicals are actually produced on the site they're stored. Second, their budget has been cut so much they haven't got anywhere close to the # of inspectors they really need, and third, the chemical that was leaked isn't on their list of 'hazardous' substances so it may not have been checked even had they had the authority to inspect storage tanks.

Oh, and the company didn't even have a hazardous spill response plan for an event like this, even though they knew the tanks were over 60 years old and could start leaking at any moment.

Hmm, I wonder who writes the regulations and funds the agency's inspection budget? I'd imagine it's their state legislature. I wonder what party controls WV's legislature...?

1) If it's cheaper to pay the fines than fix the violations, that will happen.2) If it's cheaper to bribe the inspectors than fix it or pay the fine AND the inspectors can be bribed without getting caught, that will happen.3) If you deliberately shut down the inspections because of budget cuts, don't be surprised when everyone starts doing the things you tried to ban and cost you more money in fines than you save by shutting down the inspectors. (Looking at you, MI pesticide inspectors).

Donnchadha:See? This is why government regulation and oversight is a terrible thing. There were absolutely ZERO reported safety violations when nobody was going around looking for them -- and now that they are, it's through the farking roof!

I didn't have ANY viruses on my PC until I installed this damn antivirus!

nmrsnr:Odds that someone will go to jail over this? Who wants to set the line?

Eh, I'm all for undoing corporations but at least in this case I don't think prison is really warranted. Had people been hurt or a more dangerous chemical been spilled then I'd reconsider. Fine the company the entire cost of the cleanup, penalize them further for failing to follow safety procedures, and watch them like a hawk for years. Oh and find out why they weren't being inspected before this. That part seems to be the biggest failing in all this.